CIV 7 issues raised by a Native American

[lt22677]

They used the term, but after Justinian I (sometimes called by historians, "the Last Roman") they were definitely becoming something else, in all meaninful ways.

Forgive me, but are you telling me that Justinian is the last Roman and after him the Romans no longer existed? if this is what you are saying I must correct, but it is wrong the Byzantines were called this way by the inhabitants of Western Europe (and also us moderns), but they called themselves Romans (Romaioi) the exact title of the Byzantine Emperor is " Autokrátor Kàisar Àugustos, Basilèus ton romàion" which means "Imperator Caesar Augustus, Imperator Romanorum" (Basilèus means king, but in this case it is understood as emperor) and undoubtedly the title is given that the Byzantine state has existed with continuity since subdivision into western and eastern parts until the fall of Constantinople they had good reason to define themselves as Romans more than the Holy Roman Empire and more than the Ottoman Empire which succeeded it

TheGrayFox said:
2) The difference is that I understand historical context and know that most educated people in the Roman Empire already spoke Greek before the split in the empire and that Greek as a langauge had been the lingua franca of the Roman Empire's east since before it was even conquered. The fact that the state administratively shifted official langauges to reflect the demographics it ruled specifically (while Latin still remainng a common langauge learned among the elite in east) really doesn't mark a sudden shift in the culture of the Eastern Roman Empire. They concerned themselves Romans, They were considered Romans by all their neighbors but Catholic/Germanic West. They were Roman citizens, followed Roman law, had Roman entertainment, it's social, religious, cultural, and archetcetural are a direct continuation of their late Roman tradition.. The emperor changing first langauge of the state alone doesn't immediately make Eastern Romans a completely different cultural group.

But they will be unable to do it as their own culture, in the Modern Era, which was the point.

I'd have to comment that the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic was way more of a cultural divide between the two, than maybe the language that was spoken. So, I wouldn't necessarily say that religious practices were a direct continuation. Pre-Christian Rome was even less so.

"But they will be unable to do it as their own culture, in the Modern Era, which was the point."

I didn't understand this part, can you explain it better?

However what Mr. says. Grayfox I find it quite fair, From a certain point of view the Roman Empire can be considered bilingual, since its origins Rome came into contact with the cities of Magna Graecia and Sicily and enthusiastically absorbed their culture since the times of the Scipios, after all there were emperors like Nero and Hadrian who were crazy about Greek culture and many of the writers, scientists etc... were of Greek origins or culture like Galen, Arrian of Nicomedia, Gaius Asinius Quadratus etc. After all, language alone is enough to define a civilization. To give a much more recent example, you know that Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour (who was the prime minister of the kingdom of Sardinia which created a united Italy) wrote, spoke and perhaps even thought in French better than Italian, but when he was young and traveled a lot, especially in France, someone advised him to take that citizenship and he refused

Regarding this statement
"I'd have to comment that the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic was way more of a cultural divide between the two, than maybe the language that was spoken. So, I wouldn't necessarily say that religious practices were a direct continuation. Pre-Christian Rome was even less so."
More than cultural, the division was political, the problem was that the Patriarch of Constantinople was under the control of the Emperor of the East, in practice an official a bit like the Patriarch of Moscow with the Tsar (or as now with Putin) while since the Fall of Western Empire the Pope acquired (or usurped) some of the powers of the Western Roman Emperor such as the power to issue Edicts and you can be sure that if the Western Roman Empire had survived there would have been no State of the Churches

 

[TheGrayFox]

That sounds like some commie gobbledygook.

wow amazing counter argument sir.

Imagine if America became 50% hispanophone. Would you point to the vague "moment" Spanish hit 50% as the turn of an era? Or to the very precise point in time at which the state declared Spanish the official language and started conducting official business only in Spanish?

Comparing ancient polities to modern nation-states is a pretty silly adventure in and of itself but if we're going to entertain hypotheticals

If the United States' elite had all spoke and studied Spanish as an langauge of the educated before conquering a region of hispanophone speakers, a former and fractured hispanophone empire much richer than their own and then split in half for administrative purposes with the with its leaders ruling over hispanophone side of the empire eventually shifting to speaking the same langauge administratively as the local demographic while directly maitaining and continuing american laws, culture, entertainment, archieturce, and religion yeah many would still call this the contiuation of the US state, culture, people it is. You would only create a completely seperate demonym for this group of people, if you wanted to specifically and biasedly seperate them from their historic tradition and origin. (hmmm sounds like exactly what the Catholics and Germanic states in west wanted to do to Eastern Roman empire)

 

[lt22677]

Imagine if America became 50% hispanophone. Would you point to the vague "moment" Spanish hit 50% as the turn of an era? Or to the very precise point in time at which the state declared Spanish the official language and started conducting official business only in Spanish?

Well if this happened the United States would still be the United States, they would not transform into Mexico or Spain like the fact that the Byzantine Empire (let's remember that it was the inhabitants of Western Europe who called them that, they called themselves Romei) continued to be Roman until the end

 

[Krikkit1]

Well if this happened the United States would still be the United States, they would not transform into Mexico or Spain like the fact that the Byzantine Empire (let's remember that it was the inhabitants of Western Europe who called them that, they called themselves Romei) continued to be Roman until the end

If the US went through with the Full annexation of Mexico in the War, and then in The Civil War, the Confederacy won. and Ohio to Maine seceded in the 1950s... it might officially be the USA... But just like people just call it America now, people might just call it Mexico then (not the actual "Americans"... but The Confederacy, The Northern Republic, Japan, Germany, the Soviets, would probably all call it Mexico)


That Said. The Player should be the one in control.

If, as the Romans, I pick the Byzantines, or Normans, or Mongols next... I should be able to still have my civs name (and city name list and flag) reflect My old choice if I want. (including the option to custom name my civ every era change)
AI should default pick the new.. but the new civ name (and flags where they are displayed significantly) should have portions that show the other civs of your empire.

 

[lt22677]

If the US went through with the Full annexation of Mexico in the War, and then in The Civil War, the Confederacy won. and Ohio to Maine seceded in the 1950s... it might officially be the USA... But just like people just call it America now, people might just call it Mexico then (not the actual "Americans"... but The Confederacy, The Northern Republic, Japan, Germany, the Soviets, would probably all call it Mexico)


That Said. The Player should be the one in control.

If, as the Romans, I pick the Byzantines, or Normans, or Mongols next... I should be able to still have my civs name (and city name list and flag) reflect My old choice if I want. (including the option to custom name my civ every era change)
AI should default pick the new.. but the new civ name (and flags where they are displayed significantly) should have portions that show the other civs of your empire.

Forgive me, but he didn't say that, but he said:

Imagine if America became 50% hispanophone. Would you point to the vague "moment" Spanish hit 50% as the turn of an era? Or to the very precise point in time at which the state declared Spanish the official language and started conducting official business only in Spanish?

In the event of a war lost by the United States resulting in annexation, well that is another thing, but if this was simulated by the game it's fine for me (like Mongolia conquering Egypt), but if you tell me that Egypt with 3 horses becomes Mongolia well I have serious problems justifying it, at this point you can do it that if the Egyptians find the snow they become the Eskimos and then transform into the Martians and it would be fine the same in the chosen game philosophy and if that's ok with you, I'll accept it (but the fact remains that I have the right to contest it) however let's not try to justify from a historical point of view why it is ridiculous

 

[Patine]

That sounds like some commie gobbledygook.

Imagine if America became 50% hispanophone. Would you point to the vague "moment" Spanish hit 50% as the turn of an era? Or to the very precise point in time at which the state declared Spanish the official language and started conducting official business only in Spanish?

You know damn well what the answer is. A state elevating a language above another marks a tectonic shift. There are no ifs ands or buts about this.

Nothing "immediately" changes a cultural group other than eradication (from war or natural disaster), that doesn't mean you can't draw a line in the sand somewhere to differentiate between a preceding identity and a succeeding identity. If no categorization can be made then I guess we should just shutter all history departments in universities and Firaxis should reimburse all its Civilization sales, given it would be such a fraudulent title. After all, all that could be said about Human history is that "creatures of unspecified origin have used varied tools for a variety of purposes around the planet for an unspecified amount of time".

How is their notion, "commie," may I ask. That sounds nonsensical. In actual Communist ideology, language was, in the broad-scope and long-term, an impediment to achieving the World Worker's Revolution, and had been seen as somthing that had divided the Proleteriat and benefited the Bourgeoises. In Communist ideology, the Revolution did not travel by spread of languages. Thus I have no idea how the idea you criticize is remotely, "Communist." Do tell?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

"But they will be unable to do it as their own culture, in the Modern Era, which was the point."

I didn't understand this part, can you explain it better?

That was in regard to the Shawnee not being able to stand the test of time, in the game. It had nothing to do with Rome or the Byzantines.

However what Mr. says. Grayfox I find it quite fair, From a certain point of view the Roman Empire can be considered bilingual, since its origins Rome came into contact with the cities of Magna Graecia and Sicily and enthusiastically absorbed their culture since the times of the Scipios, after all there were emperors like Nero and Hadrian who were crazy about Greek culture and many of the writers, scientists etc... were of Greek origins or culture like Galen, Arrian of Nicomedia, Gaius Asinius Quadratus etc. After all, language alone is enough to define a civilization. To give a much more recent example, you know that Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour (who was the prime minister of the kingdom of Sardinia which created a united Italy) wrote, spoke and perhaps even thought in French better than Italian, but when he was young and traveled a lot, especially in France, someone advised him to take that citizenship and he refused

Regarding this statement
"I'd have to comment that the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic was way more of a cultural divide between the two, than maybe the language that was spoken. So, I wouldn't necessarily say that religious practices were a direct continuation. Pre-Christian Rome was even less so."
More than cultural, the division was political, the problem was that the Patriarch of Constantinople was under the control of the Emperor of the East, in practice an official a bit like the Patriarch of Moscow with the Tsar (or as now with Putin) while since the Fall of Western Empire the Pope acquired (or usurped) some of the powers of the Western Roman Emperor such as the power to issue Edicts and you can be sure that if the Western Roman Empire had survived there would have been no State of the Churches

Regardless of whether there are language divisions, religious divisions, or political divisions, I think there are enough differences between the two to at least warrant an inclusion of a separate Byzantine Empire in game. Even more so now considering civs are divided by eras.

 

[Patine]

Regardless of whether there are language divisions, religious divisions, or political divisions.

Not only those, but the social, cultural, and institutional divisions between the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire were a lot more pronounced than the the one you're quoting recognizes.

 

[lt22677]

That was in regard to the Shawnee not being able to stand the test of time, in the game. It had nothing to do with Rome or the Byzantines.

Regardless of whether there are language divisions, religious divisions, or political divisions, I think there are enough differences between the two to at least warrant an inclusion of a separate Byzantine Empire in game. Even more so now considering civs are divided by eras.

Well historically it went like this (but I remember that the Shawnee culture still exists) but if we have to make this reasoning it is also useless to play a lot take the Romans and your empire must necessarily collapse even though you manage to survive, with the United States you have to wait for the 'England colonizes something and only then those territories rebel and form the USA (and if by chance the English players/AI fails to colonize or survive then the USA isn't born?) the game was created to test what you can do by trying to produce credible results, but not necessarily historical ones, also because saying that civilizations transform as they proposed is absurd for example for Egypt I would have proposed Ancient Egypt/Mamluks/Modern Egypt or Rome/Renaissance Italy/Modern Italy (or perhaps as a medieval state you could have used Papal State/Kingdom of Sicily/Venice etc...) instead now we have Egypt/Songhai (but they are not a West African state that has no relationship with Egypt?) or Mongolia (you go from a settled Agricultural to a Nomadic and I can't find anything that has ever happened historically) to Buganda (which is an ethnic group of Uganda) that is, this is not something historically credible, but we are in the Fantasy (but then why is it called Civilization? Let's call it Fantasyzation) at this point it is worth doing something similar genre Egypt/Atlantis/Harkonnen and we're all happy

 

[lt22677]

Not only those, but the social, cultural, and institutional divisions between the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire were a lot more pronounced than the the one you're quoting recognizes.

I must correct you, in reality the Byzantine state maintained many Roman characteristics until the end, both positive/negative, then it is clear that over time there was an evolution, but the Western Roman Empire was very different from the various kingdoms who developed from its ashes and is more like the Byzantines (remember I teach history)

 

[TheGrayFox]

Not only those, but the social, cultural, and institutional divisions between the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire were a lot more pronounced than the the one you're quoting recognizes.

Got any real concrete examples?

The true schism between the churches only occurs in 1000AD. Well after the Western Rome ceased to exist and Justinian's shift from Latin to Greek as a primary langauge.

Their legal system and the imperial institutions are clearly Roman in origin and maintain that character until its dissolution as a state.

Its populace were Roman citizens who enjoyed Roman entertainment and their culture, archietcutre, fashion, and aesthetics were a direct continuations of late Roman period. I've stated from the beginning there absolutely is a reason to distinguish between the Roman Empire of Antiquity and the Eastern Roman Empire of the Middle Ages but the only reason we call it "Byzantine" is because of historgraphic bias. They were the Eastern Roman Empire from 395 to 1453.

 

[lt22677]

Got any real concrete examples?

The true schism between the churches only occurs in 1000AD. Well after the Western Rome ceased to exist and Justinian's shift from Latin to Greek as a primary langauge.

Their legal system and the imperial institutions are clearly Roman in origin and maintain that character until its dissolution as a state.

Its populace were Roman citizens who enjoyed Roman entertainment and their culture, archietcutre, fashion, and aesthetics were a direct continuations of late Roman period. I've stated from the beginning there absolutely is a reason to distinguish between the Roman Empire of Antiquity and the Eastern Roman Empire of the Middle Ages but the only reason we call it "Byzantine" is because of historgraphic bias. They were the Eastern Roman Empire from 395 to 1453.

Right, I'll correct you only on Justinian since it was Heraclius who switched from Latin to Greek as the official language of the Empire (even if Latin remained the language of the Army), another thing that the Byzantines had with the political structure of Rome was that the governors of the various Provinces/Themes were officials, but they were not the owners (even if they could rebel, but they could not transfer power to their children for example) while with the feudal system the various counts, marquises, dukes etc.. they were the owners of the lands they governed (being able to pass the fiefdom on as an inheritance to their children) and the king could only take away territories in serious cases / such as the crime of treason)

 

[Patine]

Right, I'll correct you only on Justinian since it was Heraclius who switched from Latin to Greek as the official language of the Empire (even if Latin remained the language of the Army), another thing that the Byzantines had with the political structure of Rome was that the governors of the various Provinces/Themes were officials, but they were not the owners (even if they could rebel, but they could not transfer power to their children for example) while with the feudal system the various counts, marquises, dukes etc.. they were the owners of the lands they governed (being able to pass the fiefdom on as an inheritance to their children) and the king could only take away territories in serious cases / such as the crime of treason)

Well, in the Roman Empire, the Governors of the Senatorial Provinces (the ones away from dangerous frontiers) were civic officials, often older men used to good living, and were appointed by, and answered to the Senate (at least on paper). The Governors of the Imperial Provomces (the frontier and/or rebellious provinces) were military officers appointed by, and anserable to, the Emperor (again, at least on paper). The Byzantine Themes (which were usually smaller than Roman Provinces) were governed by army bureaucrats, or military commanders noted for efficiency, to be both military and civic (in theory), and that apparently led to a very different tenor of administration.

Its populace were Roman citizens who enjoyed Roman entertainment and their culture, archietcutre, fashion, and aesthetics were a direct continuations of late Roman period. I've stated from the beginning there absolutely is a reason to distinguish between the Roman Empire of Antiquity and the Eastern Roman Empire of the Middle Ages but the only reason we call it "Byzantine" is because of historgraphic bias. They were the Eastern Roman Empire from 395 to 1453.

Continuations of cultural styles and norms does not mean the same. Our Modern Western culture, architecture, fashion, and aesthetics can be said to be traceable a continuation from at least the 1920's (around a century ago), but to casual observation, they're so very different now. Even Mickey Mouse isn't nearly viewed the same as when he first got aboard his steamboat.

 

[Thormodr]

That sounds like some commie gobbledygook.

Imagine if America became 50% hispanophone. Would you point to the vague "moment" Spanish hit 50% as the turn of an era? Or to the very precise point in time at which the state declared Spanish the official language and started conducting official business only in Spanish?

You know damn well what the answer is. A state elevating a language above another marks a tectonic shift. There are no ifs ands or buts about this.

Nothing "immediately" changes a cultural group other than eradication (from war or natural disaster), that doesn't mean you can't draw a line in the sand somewhere to differentiate between a preceding identity and a succeeding identity. If no categorization can be made then I guess we should just shutter all history departments in universities and Firaxis should reimburse all its Civilization sales, given it would be such a fraudulent title. After all, all that could be said about Human history is that "creatures of unspecified origin have used varied tools for a variety of purposes around the planet for an unspecified amount of time".

The Byzantine Empire (A name given to them in the modern day) definitely considered themselves Romans.

 

[lt22677]

Well, in the Roman Empire, the Governors of the Senatorial Provinces (the ones away from dangerous frontiers) were civic officials, often older men used to good living, and were appointed by, and answered to the Senate (at least on paper). The Governors of the Imperial Provomces (the frontier and/or rebellious provinces) were military officers appointed by, and anserable to, the Emperor (again, at least on paper). The Byzantine Themes (which were usually smaller than Roman Provinces) were governed by army bureaucrats, or military commanders noted for efficiency, to be both military and civic (in theory), and that apparently led to a very different tenor of administration.

Sorry that means "at least on paper",if you mean that the governors were not under the control of the Emperor you are greatly mistaken, meanwhile the subdivision into Senatorial and Imperial Provinces is a subdivision made by Augustus which seems to me to have lasted until Hadrian and in any case the governors had to be accountable to the Emperor more that on paper since they couldn't transfer power, you get confused with the feudal system (which however was born after the fall of the Roman Empire) where the lord of the fiefdom was the owner and could transfer the possession to his son, then yes the Provincial Governor could rebel, but in most cases it was more the local legions that rebelled and elected their commander or governor as the new Emperor (which did not always coincide because over time the emperors separated the civil and military offices of the various provinces to make it more difficult the revolts)

 

[lt22677]

Continuations of cultural styles and norms does not mean the same. Our Modern Western culture, architecture, fashion, and aesthetics can be said to be traceable a continuation from at least the 1920's (around a century ago), but to casual observation, they're so very different now. Even Mickey Mouse isn't nearly viewed the same as when he first got aboard his steamboat.

Sorry let me understand Western culture was born in 1920? can you tell me how? What do you mean by our Aesthetics? can you give concrete examples and can you explain this Mickey Mouse thing better because they seem to me to be said in such a vague way that they can mean everything or nothing

 

[Patine]

Sorry let me understand Western culture was born in 1920? can you tell me how? What do you mean by our Aesthetics? can you give concrete examples and can you explain this Mickey Mouse thing better because they seem to me to be said in such a vague way that they can mean everything or nothing

This will need a longer post. I will make it tomorrow.

 

[Patine]

Sorry that means "at least on paper",if you mean that the governors were not under the control of the Emperor you are greatly mistaken, meanwhile the subdivision into Senatorial and Imperial Provinces is a subdivision made by Augustus which seems to me to have lasted until Hadrian and in any case the governors had to be accountable to the Emperor more that on paper since they couldn't transfer power, you get confused with the feudal system (which however was born after the fall of the Roman Empire) where the lord of the fiefdom was the owner and could transfer the possession to his son, then yes the Provincial Governor could rebel, but in most cases it was more the local legions that rebelled and elected their commander or governor as the new Emperor (which did not always coincide because over time the emperors separated the civil and military offices of the various provinces to make it more difficult the revolts)

"On paper," refers to stronger vs. weaker Emperors, and Governors taking notable liberties during weaker one's reigns (occasionally even backing an unstart, popular general in declaring himself a new Emperor).

 

[lt22677]

"On paper," refers to stronger vs. weaker Emperors, and Governors taking notable liberties during weaker one's reigns (occasionally even backing an unstart, popular general in declaring himself a new Emperor).

Meanwhile you have to explain to me what a Weak Emperor means (know that an emperor had the right to sentence to death without problems) and I doubt that any governor without the support of troops dreamed of revolting against the imperial power and moreover very often they were the same legions to choose their commander or Governor and in case of refusal they risked their lives) I'll take the case of Gordian I


According to Edward Gibbon:

An iniquitous sentence had been pronounced against some opulent youths of [Africa], the execution of which would have stripped them of doing the greater part of their patrimony. (...) A respite of three days, obtained with difficulty from the rapacious treasurer, was employed in collecting from their estates a great number of slaves and peasants blindly devoted to the commands of their lords and armed with the rustic weapons of clubs and axes. The leaders of the conspiracy, as they were admitted to the audience of the procurator, stabbed him with the daggers concealed under their garments, and, by the assistance of their tumultuary train, seized on the little town of Thysdrus, and erected the standard of rebellion against the sovereign of the Roman empire. (...) Gordianus, their proconsul, and the object of their choice [as emperor], refused, with unfeigned reluctance, the dangerous honor, and begged with tears that they should suffer him to terminate in peace a long and innocent life, without staining his feeble age with civil blood. Their menaces forced him to accept the Imperial purple, his only refuge indeed against the jealous cruelty of Maximin (...).[27]

Gordian I - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So perhaps it is more correct to talk about a popular or unpopular emperor which is very different from a weak or strong emperor (which among other things are the elements to classify them in this way?)

 

[lt22677]

This will need a longer post. I will make it tomorrow.

Ok, I'm anxiously waiting